Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
Syndication
 Subscribe in a reader

A New Definition Of 'Chutzpah'

| 86 Comments

There's an old joke in which "chutzpah" (Yiddish for 'nerve') is defined by a young man who has killed both his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.

Today, we have a new definition.

Political seer Matt Stoller writes about Joe Lieberman (in response to Lieberman's interview at Pajamas Media):
Lieberman is throwing the whole party under the bus. It's time for 2008 candidates to step up.
Matt, let me say here and publicly that this proves you're an idiot. Lieberman didn't throw the party under the bus - you tried to throw him under it, and are going to fail, and are being petulant about it.

How did you think he was going to respond? By sending flowers? By campaigning to lose so you'd approve of him? Christ, you're even stupider than I thought you were if that's the case - and that's pretty stupid. Or, alternatively, you've set the new standard for chutzpah.

I said it once and still stand by it:
Ask yourself this, if you're all excited at the notion of Lieberman running against Lamont as an independent. Who do you think is going to be sitting in the Dirksen Building in February of '07? Lamont? In a state that was - in 2004 - 44 percent unaffiliated, 34 percent Democratic, and 22 percent Republican. Come Election Day, what exactly do you think is going to happen?

And when Lieberman is sitting in his Senate office next year, do you think the Democratic Party will be stronger or weaker for his departure?

I say it will be weaker.

It will be weaker because a losing Lamont candidacy will not have local and regional coattails as large as Lieberman's - and I somehow don't see Lieberman doing a lot of campaigning for downballot offices in the next few months.

It will be weaker because a senior sitting senator will owe very little allegiance to the national party.

Weaker because other senior officials will sit and weigh the cost of party allegiance against the benefit, and will have a concrete example of what party loyalty buys.

So when such bloggers as Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Chris Bowers, Jerome Armstrong and Jane Hamsher preen that they have pushed "Rape Gurney Joe" (Hamsher's sobriquet) off the island, there's only one problem: They think they are winning in doing so.

Right, then. See you all at the inauguration in January.

86 Comments

The problem a lot of these people have is foresight - what will happen next? What did they think an obviously skilled political player such as Joe Lieberman was going to do? Give up, give in? Why would he do that? He has more in common with a liberal Republican such as George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain than he now has with Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy. Harry and Ted knifed him - the Georges and John never did (so far as we know).

My guess (FWIW) is that he will vote as he has always done, but he will not vote to put Democrats into the seat of power, into leadership positions. They abandoned him, so will he on committee assignments. Oh, he'll vote bills as he has always done, but help the national party? Don't think so.

Why should he?

The whole nutroots campaign against Lieberman made no sense from beginning to end.

Except for the war on Iraq, he was completely solid on all of their liberal issues. They could count on him to be in their column.

Now, who knows if he will even caucus with these jerks in the Democratic party.

Would you, after being treated like that?

What are the nutroots going to say to him - hey, that 'rape gurney Joe' thing, we didn't really mean it!

And why are Joe's votes on the war so very very worse than Hillary's votes on the war - plus her stance on flag burning, handholding with Gingrich, and so on? Where is the unhinged campaign against her?

None of it is rational.

Lamont is rich, he's already beaten Lieberman once, almost any mistakes on the ballot will help him.

Call me crzy, but I think Lamont will win with, say, 46% of the vote to Lieberman's 41%.

OK, monkyboy, you're crzy.

monkeyboy - are you ready to back that prediction up with some cash??

A.L.

Stoller is just a paid shill, saying whetever he must in order to keep his job. You can't quote him as if he were a human being speaking his own mind and values.

Lieberman's campaign should send Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Chris Bowers, Jerome Armstrong and Jane Hamsher thank-you cards. That preening, pompous, nasty and self-satisfied crowd insured his re-election via the public's distaste for them.

And they can be counted on to do it again. They just can't help it.

Leading Democrats should be asked whether they will allow Lieberman to caucus with them if he wins. If you are going to stand for your party, stand for it. Should be interesting if the Senate ends up 50/50.

PD:

Edward Kennedy would caucus with Satan himself if it gave the Dem's a majority.

It's nice to see a good liberal like monkyboy celebrating a canidate because he's rich.

None of it is rational.

A lot of it stems from two things: (1) Lieberman dared to attack Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal; (2) Lieberman is Jewish (sorry, but anti-semitism is rampant on the Left right now).

Jason,

I wasn't celebrating Lamont's riches, but it sure comes in handy in an election. Where is poor ol' Joe gonna get enough money to win?

Lamont is the Democratic Senatorial candidate in a state that's given the past two Democratic Senatorial candidates 66% of the vote.

A.L.,

What is your call on the vote?

I'll wager 10 quatloos on:

Lamont 46%
Lieberman 41%
The Republican guy 10%

Be nice to Teddy, BD. He lost three brothers who were serving America...that should earn anyone a break.

Monky, lamont got the majority of a minority party in a state that doesn't give either party a majority, and now lamont is the Democratic candidate. He will also lose in November to Lieberman, who most of his neighbors strongly prefer. Should Lieberman caucus with the Republicans? They did support him when the Democrats spit on his candidacy. Lieberman was a staunch Democrat, but he got zapped by the nut-roots. Why should he stand by the people that spit in his soup? The obvious answer is, he probably won't.

Regarding Ted Kennedy, he may have buried three brothers that were heroes, but he is still a fat, self-centered man that left a young girl to die horribly. And then ranted about the use of water boarding on Al qaeda members... Mary Joe drowns, but Ted is all for protecting terrorists from feeling like they might drown, for a minute or so... He is giving more support to terrorists than he gave to the girl he was trying to sleep with a few years ago.

Ziv,

I don't think the decision is that simple for Joe if he wins.

The odds that he will be the decider on who runs the Senate are small. Even if he his is the decider...he'll have to look down the road to 2008 and beyond.

I think he should make the Demos grovel a bit, then go with them.

It's not like Teddy killed that girl on purpose. No doubt he would have saved her if he could have.

Laura Bush did her boyfriend in Teddy style. I don't see anyone, Republican or Democrat, giving her a hard time about it...accidents happen.

"It's not like Teddy killed that girl on purpose. No doubt he would have saved her if he could have."

I believe that is the question, isn't it.

The events surrounding that night are somewhat murky and that leaves alot open to mere speculation and rumor mongering, but its not altogether clear that either of your statements is true.

While murder seems to me to be the least likely possibility, the most likely scenario is that anyone else but a Kennedy would have ended up in jail.

monkeyboy -

Rather than going all Nigerian on you, how about we each send a trusted 3rd party $100...closest call on the election gets the cash.

Feeling confident?

A.L.

In March the Dems had everything going for them.

At the end of September they have found nearly every way to set themselves up for two more years of minority status in both the House and the Senate.

The Nutroots have shown they can destroy a Dem, but not elect one.

On social issues, Lieberman will stay with the Democratics because that's where his heart lies. But they've given him no reason to actually work for anything that isn't in his direct area of interest, so he's really going to be a free agent. (Libertarian that I am, I find that immensely appealing.)

What we're seeing, and will see accelerate if the Democrats do manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again, is the final evaporation of any real cohesion within the Democratic Party. It has become an istitution defined by what it isn't.

And what it isn't is becoming more-and-more simply "isn't Bush" -- what happens when no Bush is on the ticken in '08?

It's very hard to see past that implosion. Something will be born out of the ashes, but I'm clueless as to what it will be.

Hehe, A.L.,

Are you trying to get me to violate the ban on internet gambling so I'll get shipped off to Gitmo?

Let's see your call...

Lamont - ?%
Lieberman - ?%
Whatsisname - ?%

Damn...can I get in on this? I would also like a hundred with MonkeyBoy..is that allowed? I am willing to abide by all "trusted 3rd party" rules.

How about it?

Oh, and I will just state that Lieberman will win... Is that good enough?

The Democrats are an intrinsically tribalist party. Tribalism is/will be a dirty word in politics if I have any say about it.

http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/09/tribalism.html

Purges in the American political system are tribalist in essence. Tribalism leaves no room for dissent.

Tribalism is the enemy of civilization.

#16,

As late as April I was leaning Dem because of Republican hubris.

Democrat stupidity made me change my mind. I reached out to some on the left to assist them on some issues we agreed on. Not only did I get turned down. I got kicked in the pants. f them.

Why was I turned down when there was agreement on an issue? I wasn't part of the tribe. I was not in total agreement about everything.

Well said Simon... One of these days we will get back to individuals instead of parties, but as long as such major differences remain in defensive policy, I do not see any changes.

Does it not seem true that 25 years ago, we voted more for the person than the party? That's my perception anyway...

With todays problems, I can't imagine voting for the Democrats...sorry, just self-preservation.

Matt Stoller has also tried to push Rahm Emanuel in front of a bus. An "extremist ideologue", "selfish and destructive", Matt says.

Look on the bright side guys,

After the Republicans have bankrupted America and we're all living in cardboard boxes and working in Chinese-owned sweatshops to pay ff our debt...

It won't really matter which party we vote for, so we can go back to voting for people we actually like.

Monkeyboy makes me feel happier voting Republican.

At least then I can say I'm not voting for anyone monkeyboy is voting for.

If he could, I swear 'Dark Lord Rove' would clone monkey'.

Wait a minute... now there's a thought that explains the deterioration of conversation on the internet over the past few years perfectly. I'm a believer now. The nutroots are a secret army of cloned idiotarians manufactured in a Rovian plot to sway popular opinion in favor of Emporer George.

I wonder if I could make that into a book or movie. I bet there'd be an audience for it. You can sell an idiotarian just about anything.

Except the truth.

Monkeyboy,

Your comment that Republicans will bankrupt America was interesting... Before the last 6 years, I would have laughed at your statement (ie. known fact that Democrats raise taxes and run the economy into the ground - unless there is a Republican Congress), but I have to agree that the current Bush presidency spends just like the Democrats (Even taking into account the 9/11 tragedy).

I guess the only major difference is the defense policy and that is MAJOR! So...I guess I'll take a bit more defensive expenses compared to the Democratic plan of cutting back on the military and raising taxes. It was a tough choice...ah, really, not that hard.

Monkyboy,
How do lower taxes, lower gas prices and near record stock market highs equal 'bankrupted America'?

What do good times look like?

Does it have to rain 100's?

Maybe dogs have to poop gold?

Or is it a simple matter of the when the right party is in the White House, it's all good otherwise it's all crap?

Let's see fellow simian,

Since Clinton left office:

Oil has gone from $20 to over $60 a barrel.

The U.S. government owes $3 trillion more to the world.

The average U.S. family has taken on 40% more debt.

Median wages have fallen every single year...

And if we'd have let Wall Street manage our Social Security funds these past 6 years as the Republicans wanted (for a modest fee, of course)...we'd have made exactly zero dollars on our accounts.

Ya dig sixteen tons, and wadda ya get?

M. Simon,

So the Democrats are "triablist by nature" and the Republicans, I suppose, are not? Where did you read that, an anthropology textbook? Where does the Club For Growth fit in, then? Aren't they a conservative group that tries to purge Congressional and Senatorial candidates they consider insufficiently committed to lowering taxes?

I'm sorry, but I really don't see the difference between efforts to unseat Republican moderates like Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee and those to kick out Lieberman.

Well Matt,

The difference...

Maybe you ought to look at the voting records. Let's see, the Democrats are trying to oust lieberman for voting only 95% Democrat.

The Republicans are trying to oust Spector and Chaffee for voting Democrat 40% - 70% of the time.

Oh well, I do not expect you to see any difference, after all you are probably a Democrat (blinders are required).

I think we now know what Rove's "October Surprise" will be...

A show trial, broadcast live from Gitmo!

I think we'll see which party is the most "tribal" then...

Deagle,

Given the significance of the Iraq War to comtemporary American politics, and given the extent to which Lieberman has agreed with the Bush Administration on how to prosecute the war,why shouldn't the Democrats target him?

Isn'it the purpose of the opposition party to criticize the government in matters of national import? If a Democrat offered no alternative strategy to Iraq than the one promoted by the Bush Administration, then what's the point of even having an opposing party?

Now Lieberman seems like an honorable fellow and he very well may have been acting purely from conviction. And that's fine! But I don't see why it's outrageous or ridiculous for the Democrats to nominate a candidate for the Senate from Connecticut whose views more closely mathches those of his constitutents than Lieberman's.

Likewise, if the Club for Growth wants to purge moderate Republicans, then they should go ahead. This is politics.

I just find the notion that only Democrats are "tribalistic", as M. Simon intimated, silly. Both parties are to more or less the same extent.

Props to Mikey (#1) for the "foresight" line. If Jane Hamsher had any foresight, she'd still be producing movies, instead of writing some creepy little blog.

It's a simple thing, foresight. If I diss Joe Lieberman, how will he react against the party? If I diss Oliver Stone, what will he and his associates do to my filmmaking career? Hmm.

Props also to Monkyboy for the classic "Star Trek" reference.

One of my favorite eps, Jenn.

You might find work in Gitmo this weekend.

Courtroom set design, casting the wisest looking military officers, choosing the most evil looking "terrorist" to star, scripting doctoring, etc.

Galloway: Tell your friend not to get cute down there, the Marines at Gitmo are fanatical.

Lt. Weinberg: Fanatical about what?

Galloway: About being Marines.

Hehe, should be quite a show...

Matt:
I'm sorry, but I really don't see the difference between efforts to unseat Republican moderates like Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee and those to kick out Lieberman.

Actually, a more accurate point of comparison would be the unseating of Senator Lowell Weicker in 1988, with the help of Republicans who backed Weicker's opponent - Joe Lieberman.

There are some obvious similarities. Weicker was badly out of tune with the Reaganites who had assumed control of the Republican Party. Likewise Lieberman has run afoul of the Democratic Party's new self-proclaimed masters.

A touch of revenge featured in both cases as well. Lieberman is roundly despised as a traitor by some on the left for his criticism of Bill Clinton's behavior during the impeachment mess, though Lieberman opposed impeachment. Weicker, who was first elected to the Senate with Nixon's endorsement, was called a traitor for turning on Nixon during that impeachment mess.

Personal connections played a part in both cases. Lieberman was a friend of James and William F. Buckley, who formed a PAC to help elect him. Lamont has the backing of George Soros (and, not coincidentally, of Lowell Weicker, too).

These parallels, though, are in my opinion an inch deep. Weicker was truly a liberal and a Democrat's Republican, and he liked to say so himself. During his last year in the Senate, Weicker's liberal ADA rating was 90% and his conservative ACU rating was 4%. Lieberman currently has an 80% ADA and an 8% ACU. Several times in last few years his ACU has been 0%.
So you have to do some really weird math to make Lieberman out as a conservative Democrat.

And Weicker was justly called one of Nixon's enemies. Lieberman was no enemy of Clinton's, though, but a steadfast supporter who simply didn't serve up enough sycophancy to suit the Clintonistas.

Weicker, of course, did not turn around and run as an independent. If he had, it would have been ridiculous for anyone to accuse him of disloyalty to the Republican Party. His opponents were overjoyed to have him out of the party; that was the whole point.

"The Nutroots have shown they can destroy a Dem, but not elect one."

More likely they've proven they can turn a Democratic Party asset into - something else, a McCain-type maybe. We'll see how Lieberman interacts with Democrats in the future. The Nutroots didn't destroy him, for sure, in fact they probably made him STRONGER in the long run. They didn't exactly turn him into a Republican, either, but only a fool would expect him to blindly toe the party line from here on in.

Monkyboy writes: "After the Republicans have bankrupted America and we're all living in cardboard boxes and working in Chinese-owned sweatshops to pay ff our debt..."

That's funny, coming ON THE VERY DAY that the Dow Jones will probably hit an ALL-TIME HIGH.

Long-term interest rates are falling like a rock. 15-year mortgage money is now lower than the Fed's short-term rate. Unemployment is minuscule.

Gas way under $2 in places that don't tax and regulate the hell out of it.

We are in unheard-of good times.

Next, I suppose you'll tell us all about how this is "the worst economy in the last 50 years."

The whole affair demonstrates again the difference in the parties' attitudes towards winning elections. The Republicans had the chance to throw Lincoln Chafee under the bus, and refused. They came to the aid of a fellow party member because they knew he gave them the best chance of retaining the seat in the Senate. See also Arlen Specter. The nutroots are too unwieldy to see the big picture...the Democrats need that seat to win a majority in the Senate, and now if Lieberman wins there is no guarantee he will caucus with them. Stupid.

monkyboy also demonstrates a total lack of understanding of both economics and stats. Nice double play.

We'll see how Lieberman interacts with Democrats in the future. The Nutroots didn't destroy him, for sure, in fact they probably made him STRONGER in the long run. They didn't exactly turn him into a Republican, either, but only a fool would expect him to blindly toe the party line from here on in.
My guess is that very little will change. The party leadership was, basically, behind Lieberman in the primary. I think they'll breathe a sigh of relief at having dodged a bullet and the netroots will, once again, have covered themselves with …something.

M. Simon:

Although I completely agreed with you in your analysis of there not being a problem with Islam so much as a problem with tribalism (I've been writing the same thing for years), I think you're misapplying the term in this case.

Perhaps a better word would be “boosterism”.

I really think that what has happened in both political parties is that 1960's radicalism has come to full fruition and the radicals of both parties are now rushing around and engaging in autos da fé.

Joe Lieberman and Ed Koch are the last vestiges of the once proud Democratic Party of FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK. Joe and Ed haven't left the Democratic Pary; rather, the Party left them. I, for one, cannot wait until Jan 21, 2009. My fervent prayer is that on that date, the Election of 2000 will finally be laid to rest.

The most pathetic political sight I've seen recently was the Dems trying to paint Lieberman as a sore loser after dropping this primary. Here was this man taking victory out of defeat and announcing a new campaign and here were the Dems acting like the primary was the election. They can't lose big enough for me.

If you read enough conservative Republican blogs, you'll find plenty of people willing to throw Chafee under the bus. Rhode Island Republicans refused to do it because he's the best fundraiser for the RI Republican party. He votes 70-80% liberal in a very liberal state, or he wouldn't get 35% of the vote in any election, but if there are 50 Republicans in the Senate plus Chafee, he'll put Republicans in charge.

Lieberman's very liberal in a very liberal state, but thanks to the Lamont challenge, if the Senate is 50 Democrat plus Lieberman, you'll see the Democrats sweat.

I'm thinking Monkeyboy may be correct in this. I wouldn't be surprised to see Lamont narrowly beat Lieberman. I've seen Lamont go from within 10 points of Lieberman to 2 points, and then back to ten on likely voter polls. Either the polls have methodological errors that make them that different or this race really does fluctuate that much every few days, which I doubt. A real possibility for Lamont is that his likely voters may be more likely to vote than Lieberman's likely voters on that Tuesday. So if the 2-3% margin is actually correct, then Lamont could pull off a very narrow win (with recounts of course, I think that one is a given now). But if the 10% margin is correct, then I don't see him possibly winning.

I call shenanigans. Monkeyboy is really somebody over at Red State trying to pull a Protest Warrior and get Danziger to pull the Republican lever...

Deficits, schmeficits. Everybody bitched the same way about Reagan, that he was bankrupting the country for our children in the 1980's by running high deficits. We've done just fine since then.

Agreed, Dudley. Pretty much everyone I know drives a really nice German or Japanese luxury sedan (mines an M3) and even still they complain.

Yes, there were plenty of conservative Republican Bloggers willing to throw Chafee under the bus. Again, this illustrates the difference in the parties' approaches to elections. The RNC committed themselves to Chafee and to Specter, and even campaigned for them. It may have been hard to swallow, but they were willing to in order to give the party the best chance to win.

Bayesian -

The polls average out to a 6.7% lead for Lieberman. That's much less than the 20% lead he had in June, when a high number of voters were undecided.

Lamont obviously picked up the lion's share of undecideds, boosting to 40%, but his numbers haven't budged since July. No more traction.

Lamont needs help. He needs the Republican Schlesinger to take some votes away from Lieberman. But Schlesinger started out with a meager 10% and has gone down - way down. He can't get near double digits now.

Lieberman's campaign calculated at the start that they could win with as little as 30% of the Democratic vote. With Schlesinger doing even worse than expected, though, Lieberman could win with less. After all, he has the Democratic Party and Daily Kos to help him. They've sold him as the greatest Republican since Reagan, and the biggest right-wing Jew since Goldwater '64. The Republican votes just keep rolling in ...

Lamont needs to start pumping money into the Schlesinger campaign. For the Democrats, this would have the additional plus of being totally insane. On the downside, though, it might actually work, so it's probably not an option.

And Chris Shays is up 7 points in a district that went for Kerry in 2004. If he wins the election, Shays should send Lamont an assortment of mixed chocolates.

monkyboy declined the bet. Probably doesn't have $100 he can scrape together. Why he's so impressed by Lamont - a millionaire would have LOTS of $100 and so MUST be good!!! Also why he's obsessed by the thought that America is going bankrupt ... that word "bankrupt" may be very near to the top of his thought processes all the time.

Chester,

The Dow represents only 30 carefully selected stocks. It frequently dumps its dogs and adds better stocks. It is not a reliable measure of "how the market is doing."

If you look at a broader measure of the markets, like NASDAQ, you'll see it's currently at about one third of its peak:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EIXIC&t=my

Figure inflation of about 18% since the peak, and...well things aren't that great.

The value of all publicly traded American companies combined is about $14 trillion.

The U.S. government is in debt $8.5 trillion.

U.S. families hold even more debt.

So technically, America is already bankrupt.

We are now following the path of prior bankrupt countries...we are selling chunks of our land to service our debt.

Just Hillary will never be President, Lamont will never be a Senator. I'd wager a cool grand on that.

Did I miss something, or is Monkeyboy too cowardly to bet real money against A.L.?

How much ya wanna bet that the Democrats win the House seat of Republican Mark Foley, Co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus, who just resigned because he got caught soliciting underage male pages over the internets?

Not a sure thing, Duke Cunningham's district elected another Republican to take his place at the trough...

Monkey,

That is not the bet. Are you willing to bet $100 on Lamont beating Lieberman, or not?

Yes or no?

#32 from Matt:
"If a Democrat offered no alternative strategy to Iraq than the one promoted by the Bush Administration, then what's the point of even having an opposing party?"

Yes, exactly. What is the point?

Cetera,

You write as if there was a full national consensus behind the wisdom of the Iraq War. There obviously isn't, with a majority of Americans now opposing our efforts there. Now, with most elected Republicans lined up lock-step behind Bush regarding Iraq, doesn't it at least make sense on an intuitive level that the other major party, you know, offer an alternative? Lieberman's loss in the primary resulted from his apparent refusal to question Bush's Iraq policy. As I mentioned earlier, that is simply irresponsible by a member of the opposing party, especially a member that was once a Presidential candidate.

After I learned that Daily Kos was supporting Lamont. I knew that one of the other candidates would/will win. I believe their track record is 1 and 17 or something just as good. lol.
I actually hope that Lieberman wins-even though I am a conservative. A middle power group might be good for politics.

Lamont looks like he's worth a $100 gamble, but...if I were to accept the bet, I could got to jail for 5 years.

One has to be very careful now that we're living in post-Weimer America.

Surely we can come up with an interesting nonpecuniary wager.

Monky seems to be cherrypicking bad facts about the economy while the rest of you are cherrypicking the good facts. I think it's past time that we admit to the simple fact that owing our enemies (China) trillions of dollars is a bad idea. We've gone into historically massive debt for no good reason, and with no apparent plan to ever get back out. We as a nation have bounced a check. Calling that bankruptcy is fallacious, but it's still a major problem even without being a catastrophe.

As for the 'opposition party' situation...which Amendment declared the need for an opposition party? I thought we elected individuals based on the platforms they put forth in their campaigns and then expected them to follow through once they got to Washington. The fact that the two major parties think they must disagree on every isssue is a big part of the problem in politics today. Maybe if every Senator felt that they could vote their conscience on legislation without fearing that they would be kicked out of the party or help the other party gain more power, then maybe we would have some faith in our politicians.

Maybe I'm naive, but I like the grass over here.

Monkeyboy,

That is a copout. You are too cowardly to accept Armed Liberal's bet. Period.

I believe it is permissible to make bets where the proceeds go to charity. I normally use the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society for bets of that type, but you could use what you prefer.

More of the inane "Dems threw Joe under the bus rhetoric".

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and other dems campaigned for Joe in CT.

Then he lost. But apparantly the Democrats should have followed Joe's lead and ignore the actual election results.

He lost because he was arrogant. Hell he allowed his daughter to schedule her wedding 3 days before the primary! Why? Because he assumed he would win.

Now he may well end up winning. But the idea that democrats threw him under the bus is ludicrous.

Unless one is referring to democrat voters in CT.

Um no, "arrogance" is thinking that you can dictate to your daughter what day she's "allowed" to get married.

Hehe, GK,

Are you callin' me a Chickenhawk?

Considering the subject and setting of our potential wager...I think you just pegged the irony meter.

I like Grim's idea of a donation to aid the victims of the neocons little special interest meatgrinder they've been running in Iraq.

If General Lieberman retains his seat, they're gonna need all the money they can get.

OK, so can I assume you're in?

Who will you allow to hold the bet? I'll nominate Rev. Sensing...

A.L.

Yeah Thorely, Joe's family probably isn't too politically savy.

And Marc, I'm still good for out bet. We'll see.

A.L.,

If Joe ekes out a win, I'll donate the money to the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society in your name and send you the receipt.

If Lamont wins, I'll trust you to do the same.

monkeyboy - sounds good.

davebo - I'm covering monkeyboy's bet, and I'm sure some of the other commenters on the thread would be willing to cover yours...

A.L.

Aren't your enemies the best people to owe trillions of dollars to? I mean, we don't intend to pay it off, so when we eventually have to stiff someone, why not someone we don't like? (Put more bluntly, I'm perfectly happy with the Chinese using their money to subsidize US spending rather than expanding their military...)

Davebo:

But apparantly the Democrats should have followed Joe's lead and ignore the actual election results.

He didn't ignore the results. He doesn't claim he won. He said he'd run as an independent if he lost, and he's as good as his word.

You want Democrats should ignore Connecticut election law? I suppose you can ignore it all you want, but that won't make Lieberman disappear.

What Democrats can do, apparently, is stop Lieberman from identifying himself as a Democrat in his campaign literature. But why would you even do that? So what if Lieberman says he's a Democrat? Who are Democrats going to believe, Lieberman or Markos Moulitsas?

I'm starting to think that you're scared of Lieberman or something. Pull yourself together, man.

Shouldn't all of the CT voters choose who will best represent them? It seems to me that a very small group chose Lamont to be the party representative. However, if Lieberman thinks he is better suited to represent CT, then why shouldn't he run?

I've been lurking here the last couple of days, and I just have to congratulate you guys on being possibly the most civil thread I've ever encountered. Everybody is getting in his two cents without any cussing or name calling. That's remarkable.

Now, monkyboy, are you sure 'bankrupt' is the word you want to use? Did you forget to factor in all-time record tax receipts by the FedGov, up 12.9% over last year? Unemployment at 4.7%? Federal deficit down 17% from last year? Do you still think raising taxes would be a good idea? The left will never learn that merely saying a thing does not make it so.

Record tax receipts and the federal govenment still has to borrow $400 billion to pay its bills, Tyrone?

I didn't say anything about raising taxes.

I think we could still compete with China economically, but everyone in power seems to have given up and decided nstead to loot America for as much as they can before the ship goes down...

I'm sorry, but I really don't see the difference between efforts to unseat Republican moderates like Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee and those to kick out Lieberman.

The GOP, including president Bush, supported Chafee's re-election in the primary, and the RNC stated that they would concede the race to the Democrats had Chafee lost the primary. This is nothing remotely similar to what happened to Lieberman.

I will step up because Boker tov, Boulder! was surprised that no one responded to the "anti-Semitism is rampant on the left" charge. Although we are all aware of leftists whose litmus test for being a progressive is how anti-Israel one can be, this did not affect the Lieberman/Lamont race. Lamont supported Israel against Hezbollah during the primary. With the pro-Lamont netroots Feingold is wildly popular. Jewish voters and politicians in America have a "war camp" and a "peace camp" as they do in Israel. Being for the "peace camp" does not make one anti-Semitic. One can understand that Saddam Hussein's Iraq meant Israel no good at all but still believe that attacking Iraq was a mistake.

FYI here is Chris Bowers's latest
House forecast
. In one post Kos agreed with the poster that the Democrats may not take back the House because they haven't found the right message yet.

Barney nails it at #73. State first, party second.

I'll try to tie this in with the threat title to ease the segue, but in reading about the Foley Pedophile story this jumped out at me and recalled a previoius Armed Liberal claim that Ann Coulter was a "comedian" who was not taken seriously....in an effort to marginalize claims that she represents Right Wing thinking.

Here now I see Ann Coulter giving commentary on the Foley case on CNN.

Nowhere is she promoted as a "comedian" or does she crack a joke.

She represents the hateful, bigoted side of the political spectrum that you support, Armre Republican, and it is even more offensive and ludicrous that you and everyone else like to pretend she is just a clown.

Sorry, she's you in a dress.

Clearly it's not in either your nor CNN's interest to consider Coulter marginal.

She's considered controversial, she's vocal, she's good TV. Advertisers will get their eyeballs. What's for CNN not to like?

Andy, you've got to learn not to comment when you're drunk.

Or, conversely, to actually take the 45 seconds to search the site for "Ann Coulter" and see what I've actually written about her before you start poo-flinging.

Sorry for the derisive tone, but you really don't deserve better.

A.L.

LMAO...I guess I'll have to check myself into the same rehab clinic as your party's Pedophile in Chief, Mark Foley...

"Sorry for the derisive tone, but you really don't deserve better."

Uh, you're clearly not capable of giving any better, AL.

A good target for Foleygate would be the head of the board that oversees the high school page program, John Shimkus. Too bad the Democratic Party wrote off his challenger (and all other downstate Illinois challengers) as non-Merlot drinkers. Seeing how the wind was blowing, the unions held their nose and refused to endorse his challenger. Out of money and getting no media attention, the challenger came out a few weeks ago and declared that Bush should be impeached. The nutroots will start sending some money, but this yellowdog district won't bark for impeachment.

It's not like Teddy killed that girl on purpose. No doubt he would have saved her if he could have.

He probably could have saved her, just by knocking on the door of the nearest house. He didn't try.

Someone less influential would probably have been charged with manslaughter. He got off with 'leaving the scene'.

So, monkeyboy...how's that receipt coming??

A.L.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.




Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • sabinesgreenp.myopenid.com: Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (david.blue@...)
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Categories
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en